Artefact Ecologies: Supporting Embodied Meeting Practices with
Distance Access

Abstract

Frameworks such as activity theory, distributed cognition and structuration theory, amongst others, have shown that detailed study of contextual settings where users work (or live) can help the design of interactive systems. However, these frameworks do not adequately focus on accounting for the materiality (and embodiment) of the contextual settings. Within the IST-EU funded AMIDA project (Augmented Multiparty Interaction with Distance Access) we are looking into supporting meeting practices with distance access. Meetings are inherently embodied in everyday work life and that material artefacts associated with meeting practices play a critical role in their formation. Our eventual goal is to develop a deeper understanding of the dynamic and embodied nature of meeting practices and designing technologies to support these. In this paper we introduce the notion of "artefact ecologies" as a conceptual base for understanding embodied meeting practices with distance access. Artefact ecologies refer to a system consisting of different digital and physical artefacts, people, their work practices and values and lays emphasis on the role artefacts play in embodiment, work coordination and supporting remote awareness. In the end we layout our plans for designing technologies for supporting embodied meeting practices within the AMIDA project.

Keywords: Artefacts, Embodied Meeting Practice, Artefact Ecology, Awareness.

References

1. AMI portal: http://www.amiproject.org
2. Bly S. Talking about Talking about Things. Human- Computer Interaction, 2003, 18:181-191.
3. Bly, S., Harrison, S. and S. Irwin, Media Spaces: Bringing People Together in a Video, Audio, and Computing Environment. CACM, vol. 36, no. 1, 1993, 28-46.
4. Dix, A. First Steps in Physicality. Preface to Physicality 2006: First International Workshop on Physicality, M. Ghazali, et al. (Eds.). pp. ii-v
5. Djajadiningrat, J., Gaver, W. and Fres, J. Interaction relabelling and extreme characters: methods for exploring aesthetic interactions, Proc. of DIS 2000, ACM Press, NY, 66-71.
6. Dourish, P. Where the action is: The foundation of embodied interaction. MIT-Press: Cambridge, MA, 2001. 
7. Dourish, P. and Bly, S. Portholes: Supporting Awareness in a Distributed Work Group. Proceedings of CHIí92. ACM Press: NY, (1992), 541-547.
8. Gaver, W., Sellen, A., Heath, C. and Luff, P. One is not enough: Multiple views in a media space. Proceedings of INTERCHIí93. ACM Press: NY, (1993), 335-341.
9. Gibson, J.J.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin Company, USA, 1979.
10. Giddens, A. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.
11. Heath, C. and Luff, P. Collaboration and Control: Crisis Management and Multimedia Technology in London Underground Line Control Rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Vol. 1, No. 1, Kluwer
    Academic Publishers, the Netherlands, 1992, 24-48.
12. Hughes J, et al. Presenting ethnography in the requirements process. In Proceedings of IEEE conference on requirements engineering, (RE 95). IEEE Press, 1995, 27-34.
13. Hughes, J. et al. The role of ethnography in interactive
    systems design, Interactions, ACM Press: NY, Vol.2,
    No.2, 1995, 56-65. 
14. Hummels C, Ross P, Overbeeke CJ (2003) In search of resonant human computer interaction: building and testing aesthetic installations. Interact í03. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 399-406
15. Ilyenkov, E. Problems of Dialectical Materialism, (Translated by A. Bluden). Progress Publishers, 1977.
16. Kuutti, K. Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-computer Interaction Research. In B.A. Nardi (ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-computer Interaction. 1996, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 17-44.
17. Nardi, B.A. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-computer Interaction. 1996, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
18. Nijholt, A., op den Akker, H., and Heylen, D. Meetings and meeting modeling in smart surroundings. AI & Society, Springer-Verlag, 2006, 20, 202-220.
19. Ramduny-Ellis, D. et al. Artefacts as designed, Artefacts as used: resources for uncovering activity dynamics. In P. Jones et al. (Ed), Cognition Technology and Work, Springer-Verlag, 2005, 76-87.
20. Robinson, M.: Design for unanticipated use.... In: G. de Michelis, C. Simone, and K. Schmidt (Eds.): Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW'93). (1993), Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 187-202.
21. Schmidt, K., and I. Wagner. Coordinative artefacts in architectural practice, in M. Blay-Fornarino et al. (eds.): Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP 2002), IOS Press, Amsterdam, (2002), 257-274.
22. Selvin A, et al. Compendium: Making meetings into knowledge events. Knowledge Technologies 2001.
23. Turner, P. Affordance as context. Interacting with Computers, Elsevier, 2005,  17(6): 787-800 
24. Ullmer, B., & Ishii, H. Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 39, nr. 3 and 4, 2000, pp.915-931.
25. Vyas, D., Chisalita, C.M., and van der Veer, G.C. Affordance in Interaction. Proceedings of 13th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE-13). ACM Press: NY, 2006, 92-99.
26. Vyas, D., van de Watering, M., Eliens, A. and van der
    Veer, G.C. Being Social @ Work: Designing for Playfully Mediated Social Awareness in Work Environments. In the Proceedings of HOITí07. Springer. (To Appear) 
27. Whittaker, S. Things to talk about when talking about things. Human-Computer Interaction, 2003, 18: 149-170.
28. Hutchins, E. Cognition in the wild. 1995, MIT Press, Cambridge, USA.

http://www.hcibook.com/alan/papers/ubimeet2007-artefact-ecologies/

Alan Dix 26/4/2008